Challenger raises 18 times as much campaign money as Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick
Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick's campaign has almost no money in its coffers after it raised a miniscule amount during the first three months of the year. The incumbent was vastly outraised by a little-known Democratic primary challenger, Elijah Manley.
In the two months after announcing his candidacy in early February, Manley raised $273,389 — more than 18 times the $14,875 Cherfilus-McCormick raised during the entire quarter.
And Manley reported significantly more cash in his campaign bank account as of March 31 than the incumbent. He had $161,394. She reported just $3,937 in cash on hand.
The fundraising numbers contained in reports filed with the Federal Election Commission don't necessarily mean Cherfilus-McCormick is in danger of losing her seat, but the totals are extraordinary.
Even a Republican candidate — who has virtually no chance of victory in Florida's most overwhelmingly Democratic district — raised slightly more than Cherfilus-McCormick.
Manley crowed about the results, asserting they show that 'the people are saying loud and clear — enough with out-of-touch incumbents.' Cherfilus-McCormick said there was no cause for alarm and that everything was going according to plan.
Sean Foreman, a political scientist at Barry University, said the incumbent's fundraising was 'really unusual.'
'These are not good signs for a sitting congressperson because they are usually very well equipped in their fundraising early on to help them keep their seats,' Foreman said. 'If that's all she's raised so far, that puts her at a disadvantage compared to other incumbents.'
Cherfilus-McCormick raised just $875 from individuals, plus another $14,000 from political action committees, from Jan. 1 through March 31.
Incumbents running for reelection routinely report exponentially higher fundraising, even when the election is far off, hoping their large campaign bank accounts will dissuade potential challengers. 'I would think she'd be raising money to scare off primary challengers,' Foreman said.
The campaign reported spending $16,360. Incumbent members of Congress usually report much higher spending well in advance of elections as they build and maintain their campaign operations.
As many Congress members avoid anger-filled town halls, a few still take place
'Venal depravity': Countering Trump, South Florida Democrats decry budget-cutting plans
Resist or cooperate? Broward's congressional Democrats attempt to navigate Trump-dominated Washington
Health care company says it didn't refuse to return $5.8 million demanded by state
Ethics report details allegations of campaign violations by Cherfilus-McCormick
'World on fire': Guaranteed another term in Congress, Cherfilus-McCormick reflects, looks ahead
Other South Florida Democratic incumbents raised and spent much more during the quarter and had significant bank balances on March 31:
— U.S. Rep. Lois Frankel raised $269,000 in the quarter and ended with $494,350 in cash.
— U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz raised $169,000 in the quarter and ended with $392,500 in cash.
— U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz raised $312,300 and had $1.1 million in the bank.
Frankel, Moskowitz and Wasserman Schultz represent districts in which Republicans are much more competitive than Cherfilus-McCormick's districts, so their financial situations aren't completely comparable.
Still, it's a remarkable change for Cherfilus-McCormick, who put seven figures of her own money into her campaign in 2021 and 2022. She won a special congressional primary in 2021 for the nomination to succeed the late U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings by just five votes.
She won a full term in 2022. In 2024, she was the only Florida member of Congress returned to office without facing a primary or general election after no Democrat or Republican came forward to challenge her.
Manley raised $273,389 during the quarter.
Manley, who has unsuccessfully run for office several times before, announced his candidacy on Feb. 4, which means his money came in over the course of 56 days, which works out to about $4,882 a day.
As is often the case with candidates who aren't well known, he spent heavily to raise money. Manley's campaign spent $111,490 during the quarter, with much of the spending going to activities related to fundraising expenses.
The vast majority of his contributions — 89% — came from small, unitemized contributions of less than $200. And as often happens with candidates whose fundraising is powered by online contributions, lots of it comes from a broad national base, not locally. At least 80% of the contributions listed on his finance report came from people with addresses outside Florida.
He ended the quarter with $161,390 cash on hand.
Cherfilus-McCormick's campaign reports it has $4.3 million in debts.
The vast majority — $3.7 million — is previously reported loans from Cherfilus-McCormick to her earlier campaigns, mainly the 2021 special primary election that led to her first victory, and the 2022 primary that led to her winning her first full term.
Many of those loans were for amounts in five figures; some were six-figure loans.
During the most recent quarter, the report shows three loans from Cherfilus-McCormick to her reelection effort for $700, $200 and $354.
Entries for the 2026 amounts list her occupation as CEO of Trinity Health Care Services even though she has said she left that job at her family-owned company during the course of the 2021 campaign.
It's unclear if Cherfilus-McCormick has the resources to personally fuel a competitive race the way she did in the 2021 and 2022 primaries.
Her most recent financial disclosure, filed last year with the clerk of the House, reported assets for 2023 worth between $1,001 and $15,000 and assets belonging to her husband between $65,002 and $150,000. A 2022 filing reported that at the end of 2021 she and her husband had combined assets worth from $1.4 million to $5.9 million.
Members of Congress aren't required to provide complete details about their assets and liabilities, which are reported in broad ranges, making it impossible to figure out a lawmaker's net worth.
The campaign finance report shows the cost of ongoing ethics investigations.
The Office of Congressional Ethics referred its findings of multiple campaign transactions and official government office activities that its investigators said may have violated House rules and federal law to the House Ethics Committee. It's unknown when the office started its examination; the referral was in September 2023. In December 2023, the Ethics Committee formed an Investigative Subcommittee.
Cherfilus-McCormick has said that the review 'does not indicate any violation has occurred' and in January said that she was 'continuing to collaborate' with the subcommittee.
That has proven costly.
At the end of the quarter, the campaign had outstanding legal bills totaling $550,000 with the Elias Law Group in Washington, D.C., a prominent national election law firm. The campaign incurred $66,000 of those charges in the first quarter of 2025.
The campaign also owes $56,000 to Kaiser PLLC, another Washington, D.C., law firm. One of Kaiser's main practice areas, according to its website, is congressional investigations.
Another creditor, owed $46,354, is Angerholzer Broz Consulting for 'Fundraising and Compliance Consulting Fee.' Outstanding bills to the Washington, D.C., firm as of March 31, including $20,481 incurred in the first three months of the year, the report said.
Firm partner Randall Broz is Cherfilus-McCormick's campaign treasurer.
'These are debts incurred from responding to the ethics filing fueled by the opposition. Complaints aimed at one goal: draining my campaign financially to stop us from doing the work we need to do. But let me be clear: The fight to protect, defend, and stand in the gap for the constituents will continue. It must,' Chefilus-McCormick said in her emailed statement.
On April 7, the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit government watchdog organization, said it filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging violations of federal campaign finance law from her first election.
Also named in the complaint are business entities associated with her family, political organizations, and political consultants.
Relying largely on information contained in 2023 Office of Congressional Ethics referral made public in January, the Campaign Legal Center said the congresswoman 'appears to have violated federal campaign finance laws by transferring or directing over $250,000 in 'soft money' — funds that do not comply with federal contribution limits, source prohibitions, and reporting requirements.'
Cherfilus-McCormick downplayed the group's complaint: 'These are the same set of circumstances, they keep flipping and changing. There's nothing new here. Every opponent has pushed the same line and narrative, but the district sees through it. There is one goal behind these attacks: Financially drain my campaign to stop the work I'm doing for the people of D-20.'
Cherfilus-McCormick said raising money hasn't been her focus this year.
'I've been spending most of my time fighting in the community, hosting town halls, listening sessions and roundtables, dealing with the crisis in Middle East, dealing with deportations and TPS challenges for Haitians and Venezuelans, dealing with the escalating crisis in Haiti, fighting back the tariffs that are affecting both ports in Palm Beach and Port Everglades' and fighting to preserve veterans' Social Security and Medicaid benefits, Cherfilus-McCormick said via email.
She said she has always planned to implement an aggressive fundraising strategy in the second quarter.
'Our opposition has been solely focused on filing complaints, trying to ignite investigations, trying to distract us from effectively fighting for our constituents,' she said.
Stephen Gaskill, a political communications consultant and former president of the Florida LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus, said he is 'sure (that) when the campaign kicks in to gear' the congresswoman 'won't have trouble raising the money she needs to be reelected, especially in what we are expecting to be a Democratic year.'
Manley's communications efforts are somewhat biographical as he introduces himself to potential donors, and have criticized what President Donald Trump and Republicans who control Congress have been doing.
He's also been pummeling Cherfilus-McCormick, and did so again in his response to her campaign finance report.
'While my opponent is mired in campaign debt and scandal, our campaign is earning the support of working-class Democrats across South Florida and the country,' Manley said in a statement. 'Voters are ready to replace a corrupt healthcare CEO with a working-class teacher and organizer who will fight for them.'
Manley's prospects are uncertain.
He's 26, and has already made several unsuccessful bids for office.
Manley ran for Broward School Board in 2018, receiving 18.6% of the vote. He's also run three times in Democratic primaries for state representative: in August 2020 (30.1% of the vote), January 2022 (25.1%), and August 2022 (29.2%).
Foreman said a candidate with higher name recognition would likely have a better chance at defeating an incumbent. But, he added, 'you never know. Politics is about being in the right place at the right time. If Cherfilus-McCormick has a lot of negative publicity toward her campaign, that could help her opponent no matter who it is.'
Cherfilus-McCormick said she is taking his challenge seriously. 'I take every opponent seriously, it could be anybody. Why? Because I take the job I do seriously. Especially during this time when there's so much to fight for,' she said. 'Anyone who is trying to interfere with the fight, disrupt or interrupt the American people, we take them very seriously. This is a moment when we should be unified, not fighting each other.'
The 20th Congressional District takes in most of the African American and Caribbean American communities in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
It includes much of central Broward, including all or parts of Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Lauderdale Lakes, Plantation, Lauderhill, North Lauderdale, Sunrise and Tamarac.
It also takes in a large swath of the Everglades and goes north to the Glades communities near Lake Okeechobee and extends back east to include parts of Royal Palm Beach, West Palm Beach and Riviera Beach.
The partisan voting index from the Cook Political Report rates the district as D plus 22, which means it performed 22 points more Democratic than the nation during the past two presidential contests.
That makes it the most Democratic district in Florida and one of the most heavily Democratic in the nation.
It is so overwhelmingly Democratic that the winner of the August 2026 primary is all-but-guaranteed to win the November election.
Still, Republican Rod Joseph has filed paperwork to run.
Joseph came in fourth in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in 2024. He soon switched parties and endorsed U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., for reelection.
Joseph reported raising $16,847 in the quarter, spending $12,517, and finishing with $4,330 in the bank on March 31.
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sunsentinel.com and can be found @browardpolitics on Bluesky, Threads, Facebook and Mastodon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Stocks usually rise by 10% a year. Those days may be over.
Americans are wise to invest in the stock market, we are told, because stocks have yielded historical gains of about 10% a year. But not, perhaps, this year. Many analysts predict that the S&P 500 index will end 2025 essentially flat, or with only meager gains. In one June 25 roundup, Yahoo Finance charts several strategists with year-end projections that put the benchmark S&P index between 5,600 and 6,100. Those figures fall below, or only slightly above, where the S&P started the year, around 5,900. Some forecasts range higher, and forecasters have been growing more bullish about American stocks in 2025. But anyone who predicts double-digit returns this year risks being branded an outlier. If big investment firms expect the stock market to finish 2025 more or less where it started, how should armchair investors react? Is the investment landscape shifting beneath our feet? First, let's explore the reasoning behind those gloomy forecasts. Stocks opened high in 2025. Maybe too high. The stock market opened strong in 2025. The broad S&P index sat near its all-time high, following two years of conspicuous growth. That growth spurt, alone, was enough to seed caution in forecasters. A surging S&P means stock prices are relatively high. Some stocks are overpriced. Bargains are fewer. The index may not have that much room to grow. 'I believe that, given the strong returns over the past two years, some lower returns are expected,' said Eric Teal, chief investment officer at Comerica Bank. Comerica's own projections call for the S&P 500 to end the year at 6,400, a number toward the high end of forecasts. Wall Street prognosticators have been bearish on stocks in 2025 because of one overarching theme: uncertainty. 'It's all the volatile actors in our current economy,' said Catherine Valega, a certified financial planner near Boston. 'It's like you don't know from one day to the next: Do we have tariffs? Do we not have tariffs?' It's hard to predict how President Trump's import taxes will affect prices, and thus, inflation. The trade war, coupled with Trump's immigration crackdown, could slow economic growth. Recession fears are heightened. The Federal Reserve may or may not ease interest rates in response. 'We're assuming that we sidestep a recession, that interest rate cuts are on the horizon, but not immediate,' Teal said, reflecting a common view on Wall Street. 'And so, there is an element of cautious optimism that I think is in the market, but a high degree of uncertainty and macro policy unknowns that will keep markets contained.' Stock forecasters don't want to be wrong There's another big reason, analysts say, why year-end forecasts for the S&P 500 are trending low: Forecasters tend to err on the conservative side. 'The analysts have historically kind of underestimated S&P 500 returns,' said Kristy Akullian, head of iShares investment strategy, Americas, at BlackRock. 'People don't want to stick their necks out with a bold prediction and be wrong.' That impulse, she said, also explains why stock forecasts tend to bunch together. No one wants to stand out. 'It's hard being an outlier,' said David Meier, a senior analyst at Motley Fool. Meier cites yet another reason why stock forecasters tend to aim low: 'Being negative, let's call it bearish, tends to get more clicks,' he said. Readers gravitate to distressing news about stocks. So, stocks are having an off year. What can I do? Now, let's move on to the practical question: If the S&P 500 might not gain much ground in 2025, what should ordinary investors do about it? The easy answer, of course, is to do nothing. Stock market projections for next month, or next year, shouldn't matter much to an investor who is in for the long haul, advisers say. And that advice applies to just about everyone: If you aren't in for the long haul, experts advise, stocks might not be for you. 'If you need funds soon, don't have it invested,' said Randy Bruns, a certified financial planner in Naperville, Illinois. 'If you don't need the funds for 15 years, stop looking at the volatility.' Market downturns tend to be brief. Recessions are shorter than they seem. Anyone who is saving for retirement, or for other long-term goals, can generally ride them out. 'If you have the luxury of being a long-term investor, be one,' Akullian said. There is, however, a longer and more nuanced answer to the question of how to respond to those conservative projections for stocks in 2025. A gloomy forecast for 2025 -- and for 2035 It involves this complicating factor: Stock market forecasts are also surprisingly conservative for 2035. Vanguard, the investment firm, predicts the U.S. stock market as a whole will rise by an underwhelming 3.8% to 5.8% a year over the next 10 years. 'Growth' stocks, the likes of Nvidia and Amazon, are projected to rise by only 2.5% to 4.5%: not much faster than inflation. Those forecasts are based on the idea that many U.S. stocks are overpriced, in essence, and trading above their real value. In Vanguard's analysis, everyday investors who want the gaudy returns they have come to expect from American growth stocks would do well to look elsewhere: Global stocks. Small-cap American stocks, in companies with a lower market value. 'Value' stocks, trading below their intrinsic worth. 'I would say it's time to have a more balanced allocation,' said Teal of Comerica. Bruns, the financial planner, suggests average investors should 'diversify across all the broad asset classes that should comprise a textbook portfolio.' That doesn't mean you should sell all of your Alphabet stocks, experts say. But the time might be right to scrutinize your portfolio. Does it include foreign stocks? Small-cap stocks? Bonds? If not, then you might consider rebalancing your portfolio to make it more diverse. 'The easiest way to do that, if you are a 401(k) contributor, is to change your future allocations,' Valega said. That way, you don't have to tinker with your current investments. Not sure how to rebalance? 'Reach out to your adviser,' Valega said. 'That's what we're there for.'
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."
